USCA11 Case: 20-14725 Date Filed: 12/08/2021 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-14725 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ KAREN MELISSA GODOY-GALIANO, LUIS A. GODOY-GALIANO, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A209-901-873 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-14725 Date Filed: 12/08/2021 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 20-14725 Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Karen Godoy-Galiano petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. 1 We deny the petition. I. Godoy-Galiano, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States illegally with her minor son in November 2016. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against her and her son, charging that they were present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). In January 2018, Godoy-Galiano conceded removability. She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). She explained in her application that when she lived in Honduras, her mother mistreated her because she regretted giving birth to her and blamed her for lost opportunities. Her mother was also jealous that Godoy-Galiano was allowed to live with her grandmother, and 1Luis Godoy-Galiano, Karen’s son, was a derivative beneficiary of her asylum application. We therefore address only Karen’s application. USCA11 Case: 20-14725 Date Filed: 12/08/2021 Page: 3 of 6 20-14725 Opinion of the Court 3 her mother threatened her and her son. Godoy-Galiano decided to take her son to the United States to seek safety and better educational opportunities. The immigration judge denied her application and ordered that she and her son be removed to Honduras. First, the immigration judge concluded that her application for asylum was time-barred because she did not file it before the applicable one-year deadline. See id. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Second, the immigration judge found that she was not entitled to withholding of removal because, among other reasons, her proposed social group—“single mothers in Honduras without male protection”—was neither particular nor socially distinct, and even if it were, she failed to show the requisite causal nexus between that social group and the harm that she experienced in the past or feared facing in the future. Third, the immigration judge concluded that she did not qualify for CAT protection because she did not establish that she was personally at risk of being tortured by or with the acquiescence of Honduran officials upon her return. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.18(a). Godoy-Galiano then appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board agreed with the immigration judge’s decision to deny her application for asylum as untimely and recognized that her appeal did not challenge that conclusion. The Board affirmed the immigration judge’s determination that her proposed social …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals